Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 08:48:29 -0700 From: Don Dugger <dugger@hotlz.com> To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?= <des@des.no> Subject: Re: Why is not more FreeBSD software written in C++? Message-ID: <444BA1CD.9020902@hotlz.com> In-Reply-To: <86acaco58x.fsf@xps.des.no> References: <44490663.3040506@hotlz.com> <86d5f9pno8.fsf@xps.des.no> <444A652E.5010403@kanga.org> <864q0lplro.fsf@xps.des.no> <444A9DE6.4070203@hotlz.com> <86ejzpntn6.fsf@xps.des.no> <444AB293.40809@hotlz.com> <86acaco58x.fsf@xps.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: >Don Dugger <dugger@hotlz.com> writes: > > >>So if c++ isn't all that good it's ISO fault not ANSI? Why is this >>so important to you. >> >> > >It isn't. Please try reading what I write. You might want to read up >on C and C++ as well, and come back when you know a little bit more. > > > Just what have you contributed to this conversation other then criticism? If you have a point of view about the subject why don't you say it? So far all you've done is point out how smart you are, that you don't like ANSI and that c++ streams are not related to the SysV stream. And how much I know or don't know about c++ does not change the point, what does any of that have to do with the question? The fact is that each of your criticisms have reinforced my point of view, other then the one about streams. So what is it that your trying to do other then argue? Hey man you seem bright , I would really like your option of the subject. Your wasting your time criticizing me, I'm to old for it to have much effect. I really think the young man (I think it was a man) has a valid point, why isn't more software written c++? And my point is, that it's a myth that c++ it's self is a performance hit, and that there are ways to use c++ so as not to incur such performance hits. An on the subject of c++ standards. My point was and is that it's a world standard and that it is not own by some corporation. And why you insist on belittling ANSI role in the standard is beyond me. I in no way was trying to imply anything other then it was a standards group that was responsible for the definition. In my world when some refers to standard c they say "ANSI C" and I have already apologized if that offends you, but I don't think that any one that uses that term is thinking about the tact that it refers to only the US standard group they are simply referring to the standard and as I pointed out g++ compiler uses the term to mean use the standard c++. As to ANSIs role in the c++ standards is concerned I suggest you read the "Introduction" section of the book "The C++ Standard - Incorporating Technical Corrigendum No. 1 (BS ISO/IEC 14882: 2003 (Second Edition)" and pay special attention to the second to last paragraph. >>>He is Danish. Murray Hill, NJ is the location of AT&T Labs, where he >>>works. >>> >>> >>I know where AT&T *was*. >> >> > >was? AT&T and AT&T Labs are still very much alive. > > Again you miss the point. I was simply pocking fun at the old Bell System companys going though so many changes. And your technically wrong , SBC bought the old AT&T in November of last year and changed it's (SBCs) name to at&t. There back! (The old Bell System that is) [and before you find something wrong with that last comment, I was joking] >DES > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?444BA1CD.9020902>